Whose game is it anyway?

Share This article

No sooner had BioWare released Mass Effect 3 than the fast-selling video game was embroiled in controversy. Fans who had followed the adventures of Commander Shepard since the first Mass Effect in 2007 were outraged at the final minutes of the concluding chapter of the trilogy, which they felt disrespected — or at least disregarded — the years they had put into fighting the Reapers. So they did what anyone these days might: they banded together.

The fans started a Facebook group and a Twitter feed. They launched a petition drive, and has so far raised more than $50,000 for Child’s Play. Both sides of the issue got plenty of media attention. The game’s director came out as “unapologetic” about the ending. Finally, mainstream media outlets couldn’t ignore the story, and reported that BioWare is listening to the fans’ concerns. So fervent was the discussion on all sides, it could be difficult at times to remember that there was only one developer involved in the struggle.

Meanwhile, over at Kickstarter, Double Fine completed its not-so-quiet attempt to raise funds for a new point-and-click adventure game, earning more than $3.3 million on an original asking amount of $400,000. And inXile Entertainment fired up its bid for $900,000 to make a sequel to the landmark 1988 computer game Wasteland — a goal it surpassed in just a couple of days. (As of this writing, the project has amassed more than $1.2 million, and still has a month to go.)

Let’s review. In one instance, gamers are revolting because they didn’t get the game to which they felt they were entitled. On the other, thousands of gamers are putting up money — in some cases hundreds of dollars or more — to ensure that they’ll get exactly the game they want.

There can be no doubt about it: The gamers are now in control. Whether this is a good or a bad thing is far less certain.

In the case of Mass Effect 3, I’m particularly torn. I liked the game (but didn’t love it), although I don’t have the deep-running affection for the series that others do. For me, it’s always been “just another” collection of games that puts the focus on places I prefer to see it (player decisions, role-playing) rather than those I don’t (endless, mindless combat); fine, but nothing I’ve felt overwhelmingly emotionally connected to. When I reached the ending, I cocked my head for a few moments in a “That’s it?” way, but more because the uproar had led me to expect something truly offensive, not merely an odd (yet, in its way, effective) combination of violence and serenity. (I’m staying away from spoilers here, but they’re out there on the Web to be found if you’re curious.)

I understand what bothers people about it, but for me getting to the ending was, as it almost always is, more than half the fun — so I can’t get too worked up. For me, a couple of minutes at the end of the game seldom automatically negate the 15-20 hours that precede them (or more, if you count all the Mass Effect games together).

Then there’s the Kickstarter question. Although I appreciate the Double Fine and inXile model, I do have qualms about it. These cases are a bit different, because backers are contributing based on the creators’ past performance and have good reason to believe that the upcoming products will be to their liking. But doesn’t this set up an even more powerful ownership concern? What happens if the games are released and don’t match many backers’ expectations? Nearly 13,000 people pledged $100 or more on Double Fine Adventure (and, so far, more than 3,600 have done so for Wasteland 2) — considerably more than the average game costs. Sure, they understand what they’re in for, and they get other rewards for their contributions, but they’re invested in the final products in more ways than just through money. It’s not hard to see how disappointment within those ranks could dwarf what we’ve already seen from the “retake Mass Effect 3” crowd.

Tagged In

Post a Comment

http://profile.yahoo.com/T3HA6YE65NYHEXY45DCXBAFLG4 Wana

All this new frontier stuff will lead to, is more angry posts on gamer forums… little else.
So long as developers get their money, they’ll keep screwing the customers with misleading hype, cut-and-paste coding and “rushed out the door before the deadline” shovelware.

http://profile.yahoo.com/T3HA6YE65NYHEXY45DCXBAFLG4 Wana

All this new frontier stuff will lead to, is more angry posts on gamer forums… little else.
So long as developers get their money, they’ll keep screwing the customers with misleading hype, cut-and-paste coding and “rushed out the door before the deadline” shovelware.

http://profiles.google.com/alexmoreno Alejandro E. Moreno Ruiz

I think emotionally invested people are just as likely to approve/disapprove of a product. So that’s not going to be any different.

“Oh, this game is not great, but it’s Tim Shaefer’s! And I helped produce it via Kickstarter! And some times it’s hilarious! This game is good.”

“I gave them $100 dollars for this $10 dollar POS?!?!”

And there’s nothing wrong with giving your audience what they want. The trick is to do it in a way that the artist is still true to his or her vision. For example, the Portal games have so much stuff that was dictated by user testing (giving people what they expect), but they still provide satisfying experiences true to their artistic theme (first-person comedic puzzle-adventure?).

http://profiles.google.com/alexmoreno Alejandro E. Moreno Ruiz

I think emotionally invested people are just as likely to approve/disapprove of a product. So that’s not going to be any different.

“Oh, this game is not great, but it’s Tim Shaefer’s! And I helped produce it via Kickstarter! And some times it’s hilarious! This game is good.”

“I gave them $100 dollars for this $10 dollar POS?!?!”

And there’s nothing wrong with giving your audience what they want. The trick is to do it in a way that the artist is still true to his or her vision. For example, the Portal games have so much stuff that was dictated by user testing (giving people what they expect), but they still provide satisfying experiences true to their artistic theme (first-person comedic puzzle-adventure?).

http://www.TheGuruReview.net TGR

I played Mass One and Two and wanted to finish SWTOR on the PC before I started Mass 3 on my XBOX. I fear that the ending is going to make me angry from these reports. That said, do I need to look at the spoilers on Youtube and decide if M3 is worth the investment?

http://profile.yahoo.com/SWNETTVKCZYW7ZPP7EIJ7GZTCU Clark Smith

Played ME3 and loved it. The ending? Well, I thought it was fine. Can’t believe anyone would decide not to play the game because the ending isn’t what they wanted. People freaked out over the last scene of The Sopranos, and the last episode of Lost, and Seinfeld, but no one refilmed them. Something called Creative License, or so I’ve heard. ME3’s ending had a great deal of impact for me, which I can’t delve into without spoiling it. Some people, I guess, want the predictable ending that we all too often see, instead of something that makes you think. Some folks call the ME3 ending ‘lazy writing’, but it would be equally lazy to give people what they are expecting instead of giving them something different. ME3 opted to close it out in its own way, and the thought that gamers want them to change it makes me laugh. Seriously? People need to get out more. Having played the game, I can’t imagine playing an alternate ending as a DLC. What would be the point?

Karl Borneman

for the same reason marvel comics used to do What-If series. its fun to dream up alternate realities

Anonymous

Games aren’t art in my opinion Matthew – at least not in the sense that you send your finished work off as completed. The off-side rule, castling, aces wild and the variations in Oware all attest to variations within the established framework of games. I can certainly see a creative director throw a tissy because he is ‘telling a story’ but, contemporary IP constraints aside, stories conform to the game of ‘Chinese Whispers’ and their inspiration for their story will find its roots there also.

The ‘Modding’ community is a robust and competitive group who often outpace developers with their works – firms like Bethesda grasp tightly to them and use them to their advantage. I remember ‘poking’ Monty Mole games and redrawing sprites for Robocop on my ST – it just seems in recent years it’s gotten a whole lot more commonplace to expect an interactive aspect to games which really benefit from such PR.

The reemergence of point-and-click styled games just shows that developers don’t understand their customers wishes properly. The Wii managed to teach high-end developers the importance of playing games differently – something Kinect and Playstation Move learned well from. Let’s just hope that Double Fine do a good job and bring firms like Telltale more custom from their ‘unusual’ way of generating revenue.

Bonus points for the article title Matthew – I thought it was going to be a piece of piracy!

http://twitter.com/TimberWolf_CLT Marc R Bacon

Just because you’re “meh” about the series, please don’t just discount those of us who have invested the time and emotion into developing our “Shepherd”.

I have to agree with a previous comment that games aren’t pure art. They’re commercial undertakings done so with one of the desired goals being financial rewards. They are in no way put together just for the “artist” to express themselves.

That being said, I do believe that yes the gamers are “entitled” to a fulfilling ending. Some reviews point out that novels and films have similar endings. Well, that’s nice. I don’t spend 100’s of hours over the course of 5 years watching a film.

What we were hoping for was an ending that took into account our choices along the way (Remember all of the HYPE from BW about this?) and then led us to an ending that reflected this and allowed us real choices. (I won’t put any spoilers, don’t worry.)

The ending could have been uplifting, super dark, whatever. I think that folks could have been left with a “job well done” feeling.

I’d swear that EA and BW are just pandering to the folks who haven’t played ME before. I don’t consider an “ultimate” ending that is reached in only certain arcane cases to be acceptable. We didn’t have it in ME2 why ME3?

Use of this site is governed by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Copyright 1996-2015 Ziff Davis, LLC.PCMag Digital Group All Rights Reserved. ExtremeTech is a registered trademark of Ziff Davis, LLC. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of Ziff Davis, LLC. is prohibited.